Monthly Archives: December 2019

PotNetwork Holdings, Inc. Reports Over $14 Million Year-to-Date Results through September 2019

FT. LAUDERDALE, FL / ACCESSWIRE / December 23, 2019 / PotNetwork Holdings, Inc. (OTC PINK:POTN) ("the Company"), has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its third quarter results through the end of September 2019.

For the 9-months ending September 30, 2019, the Company reported total sales of approximately $14.1 million. Previously, revenues for the 6-months ended June 30th had exceeded $10.5 million.

"With market conditions, we have become more aggressive in our pricing and developing an expanded product line and distribution footprint for the future, while simultaneously becoming more vigilant about our costs," said Kevin Hagen, CEO of PotNetwork Holdings, Inc. "Throughout the 3rd quarter, we reduced operating expenses to streamline business operation. Separately, it is important to note that because of public concern about vaping, mid-year we also began the wind down of sales of our vape product line (none of which contains vitamin E acetate) which affected sales results."

About PotNetwork Holdings, Inc.: PotNetwork Holdings, Inc., a publicly-traded, fully-reporting SEC company, trades its common stock on the OTC market under the symbol: POTN. The Company, a holding company, has as its principal subsidiaries, First Capital Venture Co., the owner of Diamond CBD, the maker of Diamond CBD products, and PotNetwork Media Group, Inc., the publisher of PotNetwork News and PotNetwork Magazine (PotNetwork.com). For more information, please visit, www.potnetworkholding.com.

About Diamond CBD, Inc.: Diamond CBD focuses on the research, development, and multinational marketing of premium hemp extracts that contain a broad range of cannabinoids and natural hemp derivatives. Diamond CBD's team consists of hemp industry pioneers and natural product experts, chemists, doctors and scientists, dedicated to producing the finest and purest cannabidiol (CBD) oils. The result is a robust selection considered among the most powerful natural CBD oils, tinctures, edibles, and vape liquids found anywhere. For more information, please visit its website at www.DiamondCBD.com.

Safe Harbor: Forward-Looking Statements are included within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements regarding our expected future financial position, results of operations, cash flows, financing plans, business strategy, products and services, competitive positions, growth opportunities, plans and objectives of management for future operations, including words such as "anticipate," "if," "believe," "plan," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "may," "could," "should," "will," and similar expressions are forward-looking statements and involve risks, uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond our control, which may cause actual results, performance, or achievements to differ materially from anticipated results, performance, or achievements. We are under no obligation to (and expressly disclaim any such obligation to) update or alter forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Contact:

PotNetwork Holding, Inc.
1-800-915-3060
investor@PotNetworkHolding.com

SOURCE: PotNetwork Holding, Inc.

ReleaseID: 570962

Top Auto Glass Repair and Installation Company Opens a New Location in West Columbia

WEST COLUMBIA, SC / ACCESSWIRE / December 23, 2019 / First Choice Auto Glass, a glass repair and windshield replacement company, is pleased to announce the opening of their new location in West Columbia, SC. Their entire team is excited and thrilled to announce that they are now open for business and are equipped to serve West Columbia residents with all of their auto glass repair needs.

The auto glass repair Columbia SC company understands everyone's auto glass needs repairing or even replacement under various cases. The glass might get a chip, or crack and may need replacing by a local family-owned company. No matter what a vehicle owner faces, they can go to First Choice Auto Glass for all their glass repair and replacement options.

First Choice Auto Glass is a locally owned and family-run auto glass repair and replacement company. They take pride in having established a reputation of being home of Legendary Service throughout the Midlands.

What makes this company unique from other services is that they are a preferred provider on every insurance network. Their team of professionals can file their customer's insurance claims for them. What's more, they also provide competitive costs on cash quotes as required. They only purchase factory approved, allowing their customers to be confident that the same quality was placed in their vehicle when it was first made.

According to Joyce Russ, the founder of the company, they have been able to stay open and develop throughout the years because they concentrate on presenting a professional level of service. "Our huge success can be associated to the fact that since we opened our doors in 2002, we have strived to offer exceptional service. We offer the highest quality of glass for every automobile. Our team is very excited to serve the residents of West Columbia."

Their windshield replacement in Columbia SC service offers a wide array of other auto glass services too. This includes Side View Mirrors, Auto Glass Repair, Auto Glass Replacement, Certification, Convenient Mobile Service, and Written Lifetime Warranty.

First Choice Auto Glass is now prepared to take care of their customer's auto glass needs in West Columbia, including back glass, vent glass, quarter glass, door glass, repairs, and auto glass replacement.

About First Choice Auto Glass

First Choice Auto Glass is a family-owned and operated business established in 2002. Joyce Russ founded the company along with her husband Wayne and their daughter. Since then, the company has built a reputation for superior quality glass repairs, installations, and maintenances. Compared to other small companies in the area, First Choice has established a robust business that aims to serve its customers today and into the future.

To know more about First Choice Auto Glass, contact Michele Wilkie at 803-791-8886 or send her an email at info@firstchoiceautoglass.co. Visit their website at www.firstchoiceautoglass.co to start a free consultation.

SOURCE: First Choice Auto Glass

ReleaseID: 571162

Big Game Forever Supports Delisting Wolves from Endangered List

SALT LAKE CITY, UT / ACCESSWIRE / December 23, 2019 / Big Game Forever publicly supports the new American Wild Game and Livestock Protection Act, which removes the gray wolf from the endangered species list and directs wolf management to state authority.

We greatly appreciate Senator Mike Lee's leadership to shift stewardship responsibility of the gray wolf to states, which can effectively manage the species in their areas," said Ryan Benson, BGF president and founder. "Delisting the gray wolf from the endangered list also allows states to protect and recover America's elk, moose and deer, while managing the population of the wolves."

Elk populations across vast landscapes of 15,000 and 20,000 elk have declined by as much as 80 percent since 1995.

"Since the mid-1990s, moose populations in Jackson, WY, and Minnesota were dramatically reduced," said Benson. "Such population decreases create unnecessary risks to indigenous wildlife populations.

Responsible predator management is an important component to maintaining balanced wildlife numbers. When years of litigation blocked wolf management, populations of moose, elk and other wildlife crashed.

"With everything in nature delicately connected, the leadership reflected in this congressional act will have a positive ripple effect on wild game and livestock management going forward," Benson said. "State management, including trapping, hunting and professional predator management are important tools that ensure wild game populations remain balanced and sustainable for future generations."

Established in 2011, Big Game Forever actively works to counter threats to wildlife, sportsmen's rights and way of life. For more information, visit biggameforever.org.

For More Information, Contact:

Ryan Benson
Big Game Forever
ryan@biggameforever.org
Mobile: 801-870-5307
biggameforever.org
90 W. 500 South, #428, Bountiful, UT 84010

Links
http://biggameforever.org/

SOURCE: Big Game Forever

ReleaseID: 571137

Avidian Gold Announces Completion of C$830,000 Non-Brokered Private Placement

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO UNITED STATES WIRE SERVICES OR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES

TORONTO, ON / ACCESSWIRE / December 23, 2019 / Avidian Gold Corp. ("Avidian" or the "Company") (TSX-V:AVG) is pleased to announce that on December 20, 2019, the Company completed its previously announced non-brokered private placement of 8,300,000 flow-through units of the Company (the "Flow-Through Units") at a price of $0.10 per Flow-Through Unit for gross proceeds of $830,000 (the "Private Placement"). Each Flow-Through Unit consists of one common share in the capital of the Company to be issued on a "flow through" basis pursuant to the Income Tax Act (Canada) and one-half common share purchase warrant. Each whole warrant entitles its holder to purchase one common share in the capital of the Company at an exercise price of $0.15 per share for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of issuance.

In connection with the Private Placement, the Company will pay $25,500 in cash compensation to eligible finders and issue to the eligible finders 255,000 compensation warrants (the "Finder's Warrants"). Each Finder's Warrant is exercisable into one Common Share for a period of twenty-four (24) months at an exercise price of $0.10 per Common Share.

The Flow-Through Units, Finder's Warrants and the securities underlying them will be subject to a four (4) month hold period in accordance with applicable Canadian securities laws.

Related Party Transaction

In connection with the Private Placement, David Anderson, CEO and a director of the Company has acquired 750,000 Flow-Through Units and Donna McLean, CFO of the Company, has acquired 100,000 Flow-Through Units. The participation in the Private Placement, by Mr. Anderson and Ms. McLean constitutes a "related party transaction", as such terms are defined by Multilateral Instrument 61-101 – Protection of Minority Security Holders in Special Transactions ("MI 61-101"). The Company is relying on an exemption from the formal valuation requirements of MI 61-101 available on the basis of the securities of the Company not being listed on specified markets, including the Toronto Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ or certain overseas stock exchanges. The Company is also relying on the exemption from minority shareholder approval requirements under MI 61-101 as the fair market value of the participation in the Private Placement by each of Mr. Anderson and Ms. McLean does not exceed 25% of the market capitalization of the Company.

This offering by Avidian is to assist their majority owned, private subsidiary, High Tide Resources Corp. by way of a step-down financing arrangement. The Company exercised the option disclosed in its news release of December 16, 2019 to increase the Private Placement of 6,000,000 Flow-Through Units by an additional 2,200,000 Flow-Through Units.

The net proceeds from the Offering shall be primarily used for funding exploration and development work on the Labrador West iron ore project in Labrador and the Black Raven property near Twillingate in north-central Newfoundland, the interests in which is held by High Tide.

About Avidian Gold Corp.

Avidian is focused on and committed to the development of advanced stage mineral projects throughout first world mining friendly jurisdictions using industry best practices combined with a strong social license from local communities. It brings a disciplined and veteran team of project managers together with a regional scale advanced stage gold-copper exploration portfolio in Alaska. Avidian's Golden Zone project also hosts a NI 43-101 Indicated gold resource of 267,400 ounces (4,187,000 tonnes at 1.99 g/t Au) plus an Inferred gold resource of 35,900 ounces (1,353,000 tonnes at 0.83 g/t Au). Additional projects include Amanita which is adjacent to Kinross Gold's Fort Knox gold mine in Alaska and Jungo in Nevada. The Labrador West property located in Labrador and the Black Raven and Strickland properties located in Newfoundland, are held within Hide Tide Resources Corp, a private company in which Avidian holds a significant interest.

Further details on the Corporation and the individual projects, including the NI 43-101 Technical report on the Golden Zone property, can be found on the Corporation's website at www.avidiangold.com.

About High Tide Resources Corp.

High Tide is a private corporation, majority owned by Avidian, that is focused on and committed to the development of advanced-stage mineral projects within Canada using industry best practices combined with ensuring a strong social license from local communities. It is advancing its Labrador West iron ore property, Strickland base metal property and Black Raven gold property, all located in Newfoundland & Labrador, Canada. High Tide is majority owned by Avidian.

The technical information contained in this news release has been approved by Dr. Tom Setterfield, P.Geo., Vice President Exploration of Avidian, who is a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

For further information, please contact:

Bonnie Hughes, Manager Investor Relations
Mobile: + 44 75382 96674
Email: info@avidiangold.com

Steve Roebuck
High Tide President & VP Exploration
Mobile: +1 (905) 741-5458
Email: sroebuck@avidiangold.com

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.

Forward-looking information

This News Release includes certain "forward-looking statements". These statements are based on information currently available to the Company and the Company provides no assurance that actual results will meet management's expectations. Forward-looking statements include estimates and statements that describe the Company's future plans, objectives or goals, including words to the effect that the Company or management expects a stated condition or result to occur. Forward-looking statements may be identified by such terms as "believes", "anticipates", "expects", "estimates", "may", "could", "would", "will", or "plan". Since forward-looking statements are based on assumptions and address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Actual results relating to, among other things, results of exploration, project development, reclamation and capital costs of the Company's mineral properties, and the Company's financial condition and prospects including the ability to close the Offering and secure additional financing as needed, could differ materially from those currently anticipated in such statements for many reasons such as: changes in general economic conditions and conditions in the financial markets; changes in demand and prices for minerals; litigation, legislative, environmental and other judicial, regulatory, political and competitive developments; technological and operational difficulties encountered in connection with the activities of the Company; and other matters discussed in this news release. This list is not exhaustive of the factors that may affect any of the Company's forward-looking statements. These and other factors should be considered carefully and readers should not place undue reliance on the Company's forward-looking statements. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement that may be made from time to time by the Company or on its behalf, except in accordance with applicable securities laws.

This news release does not constitute an offer of securities for sale in the United States. The securities being offered have not been, nor will they be, registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and such securities may not be offered or sold within the United States absent U.S. registration or an applicable exemption from U.S. registration requirements.

SOURCE: Avidian Gold Corp.

ReleaseID: 571130

Envela Subsidiary Teams with Norm Hitzges to Support Austin Street Center

DALLAS, TX / ACCESSWIRE / December 23, 2019 / DGSE, LLC, a subsidiary of Envela Corporation (NYSE American:ELA) ("Envela" or the "Company") announced today that it will once again participate in presenting Norm Hitzges' annual Normathon on December 26th. Now in its 19th year, Normathon is an 18-hour radio broadcast on Sportsradio 1310 The Ticket to support Austin Street Center, a Dallas-based organization that's nationally recognized for its remarkable work combating homelessness.

Austin Street Center provides not only safe shelter and basic needs of the most vulnerable homeless, but also comprehensive employment, health and other support programs designed to help its clients transition from homelessness to independence.

About Envela

Envela and its subsidiaries engage in diverse business activities within the recommerce sector. These include one of the nation's premier authenticated recommerce retailers of luxury hard assets; end-of-life asset recycling; data destruction and IT asset management; and providers of products, services and solutions to industrial and commercial companies.

Envela operates primarily via two business segments. Through DGSE, LLC, the Company will operate its Dallas Gold and Silver Exchange, Charleston Gold & Diamond Exchange, and Bullion Express brands. Under ECHG, LLC, it will operate Echo Environmental, ITAD USA and Teladvance. Envela is a Nevada corporation, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Investor Relations Contact:
David Vadala
Head of Investor Relations
Envela Corporation
13022 Preston Rd Dallas, TX 75240
972.587.4030

This press release includes statements that may constitute "forward-looking" statements, including statements regarding the potential future success of business strategies. These statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements inherently involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. Factors that would cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, market conditions and other risks detailed in the Company's periodic report filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. By making these forward-looking statements, the Company undertakes no obligation to update these statements for revisions or changes after the date of this release except as required by law.

SOURCE: Envela Corporation

ReleaseID: 571153

CLASS ACTION UPDATE: Law Office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC Reminds Investors of Deadline in Class Action Against Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: MMSI)

BALA CYNWYD, PA / ACCESSWIRE / December 23, 2019 / Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC reminds investors of the deadline to file regarding claims against Merit Medical Systems, Inc. ("Merit Medical" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:MMSI) for possible breaches of Federal Securities law.

The Class Period commences on February 26, 2019, when Merit Medical reported fourth quarter 2018 and fiscal year 2018 results and established financial guidance for 2019, including core revenue growth of 8%-10%.

According to the filed complaint, Merit Medical is a leading manufacturer and marketer of proprietary disposable medical devices used in interventional, diagnostic, and therapeutic procedures, particularly in cardiology, radiology, oncology, critical care, and endoscopy. During 2018, Merit Medical acquired three companies. Specifically, in February 2018, the Company completed the acquisition of Becton, Dickinson and Company and on November 13, 2018, the Company completed the acquisition of Cianna Medical, Inc. ("Cianna"), which makes products for the treatment of breast cancer, for up to $200 million, making it Merit Medical's largest-ever acquisition. Thereafter, in December 2018, the Company completed its acquisition of Vascular Insights, LLC ("Vascular Insights"), and acquired its ClariVein product, for up to $60 million.

On October 30, 2019, after the market closed, Merit Medical issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2019 financial results, reporting non-GAAP EPS of $0.28, well below consensus estimates of $0.45, reducing fiscal year 2019 guidance, and completely withdrawing fiscal year 2020 guidance. Following this news, the Company's stock price declined more than 29%, from a close of $29.11 per share on October 30, 2019 to a close of $20.66 per share on October 31, 2019.

The filed complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the integrations of Cianna and Vascular Insights, including their products, salespeople, and R&D facilities, had caused operational disruptions and reduced sales and were months behind schedule; (b) sales of acquired company products had slowed substantially due to pre-acquisition pipeline fill, in particular for Vascular Insights' products which, as late as July 2019, had zero orders during fiscal year 2019; and (c) in light of the foregoing, the Company's reported financial guidance for fiscal 2019 and 2020 was made without a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Merit Medical between February 26, 2019 and October 30, 2019 and wish to discuss the legal ramifications of the investigation, or have any questions, you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. The deadline for filing is February 3, 2020. You may contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire or Jordan Schatz, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by visiting http://www.brodskysmith.com/?post_type=cases&p=13407&preview=true, or by calling toll free 877-534-2590.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

SOURCE: Brodsky & Smith, LLC

ReleaseID: 570847

AgTech Global Announces Cultivation & Product Operations

IRVINE, CA / ACCESSWIRE / December 23, 2019 / AgTech Global International, Inc. (OTC PINK:AGGL) announced continued expansion of its industrial hemp and cannabis cultivation operations with the launch of a pilot program in Louisiana that will expand supplier agreements for its line of nutrient products for farmers entering into this bourgeoning agricultural sector. AGGL is an international enterprise offering its innovative agricultural systems that enable broad industrialization of the hemp and cannabis industry, specializing in nutrients, cultivation, processing, storage, and delivery of agricultural products and derivatives to farm owners and processors around the world.

George Roth, president and director of AGGL stated, "Operations officer and director, Tammy Dunn, is engaging in several meetings in her home state of Louisiana to extend its reach and operations to farmers who are new to the hemp and cannabis farming industry." Roth continued, "She is attending the Louisiana Industrial Hemp Regulatory Orientation meetings held at the LA Department of Agriculture. Along with the current regulatory update, a special presentation is being given by the LDAF Pesticide & Environmental Programs director. Because of the state's strict regulation on herbicides and pesticides, AGGL believes its line of organic nutrients and fertilizers will be accepted with great enthusiasm and demand."

The Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry's (LDAF) Industrial Hemp Program is the state's designated regulatory authority for the production, processing and transportation of Industrial Hemp. The Act, authorized by LA R.S. 3:1461-1472 was passed by the Louisiana Legislature and was signed by the governor authorizing the LDAF to submit a state industrial hemp plan to USDA and to adopt regulations to administer the industrial hemp program in Louisiana. It is the intent of USDA to have state plans reviewed, and approved within 60 days after federal rules are adopted in time for the 2020 planting season.

For more information regarding the regulation of industrial hemp in the state of Louisiana, visit the Department of Agriculture & Forestry website at www.ldaf.state.la.us/industrial-hemp/.

For more information and review of the AgTech Global's disclosure statements and financials log on to www.otcmarkets.com and enter the trading symbol AGGL.

Forward looking information.

Other than statements of historical fact, this press release may contain forward-looking statements about the Company, including descriptions of plans or objectives of its management for future operations, products or services, and forecasts of its revenues, earnings or other measures of economic performance. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They often include the words "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "intend," "plan," "estimate," or words of similar meaning, or future or conditional verbs such as "will," "would," "should," "could," or "may."

Forward-looking statements, by their nature, are subject to risks and uncertainties. A number of factors – many of which are beyond the Company's control-could cause actual conditions, events or results to differ significantly from those described in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. The Company does not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date forward looking statements are made.

Although Agtech Global International Inc. has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Agtech Global International Inc disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise unless required by law.

For further information contact:

Mike Roth
(949) 228-0049
Email: mike@aggl.net
Corporate Headquarters: 2361 Campus Drive, Suite 140, Irvine, California 92612
Mailing Address: 4540 Campus Drive, Suite 115, Newport Beach, California 92660

SOURCE: AgTech Global International, Inc.

ReleaseID: 570973

Goldrich Mining Provides Update on Liquidation of Joint Venture and Arbitration

SPOKANE, WA / ACCESSWIRE / December 23, 2019 / Goldrich Mining Company (OTCBB:GRMC) ("Goldrich" or the "Company) provides an update regarding the liquidation of Goldrich NyacAU Placer, LLC ("GNP") and the arbitration between Goldrich and NyacAU, LLC ("NyacAU"). GNP was a 50/50% joint venture between Goldrich and NyacAU, to mine the various placer deposits that occur throughout Goldrich's 23,000-acre Chandalar gold project in Alaska. NyacAU was the manager of the GNP joint venture.

The arbitration panel concurrently issued a Partial Final Award, a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion on the Partial Final Award, and a Second Interim Award. Goldrich considers this to be the beginning of the end of arbitration. Although there was no prevailing party that was awarded the payment of legal costs, many disputed issues were resolved. With the issue of the documents and the liquidation of GNP, which are discussed below, Goldrich can begin to move forward with its future plans to advance both the placer production and hard rock exploration.

Liquidation

NyacAU filed the formal Notice of Dissolution in May 2019 and received the certificate of dissolution in July with an effective date of June 3, 2019. GNP's lease to mine the placer properties terminated upon dissolution of GNP and GNP has no further rights to mine the placer properties located on Goldrich's mining claims. The claims remain the property of Goldrich.

GNP is now in the liquidation process and NyacAU, as the manager of GNP, shall act as liquidator to wind up the joint venture by May 31, 2020, or such longer period as may be agreed to in writing by the joint venture members. If NyacAU cannot or does not accomplish the liquidation by May 31, 2020 or any agreed upon extension, Goldrich shall complete the liquidation. Most of the equipment used by the joint venture has already been moved off the mine site. The joint venture parties agreed to the Panel retaining jurisdiction and oversight over the liquidation process to its conclusion.

Arbitration

In addition to the documents which have been issued, once the liquidation of GNP has run its course, the arbitration panel will issue a Second Partial Final Award. The arbitration panel may make additional awards in the Second Partial Final Award. A summary of the claims for which the arbitration panel made an award is as follows:

Capital vs. Operating Leases
The classification of equipment leases as capital versus operating affected the amount of interim distributions that Goldrich received under the GNP Operating Agreement. GNP entered into seven equipment leases ("Leases 1-7") with Bear Leasing, LLC ("Bear"), a related party to NyacAU. Subsequent to the original leases, NyacAU, as manager of GNP, unilaterally amended the leases various times without the written approval of Goldrich. Goldrich claimed the leases should be accounted for as capital leases rather than operating leases. Goldrich also claimed the lease amendments unilaterally made by NyacAU to change the classification of the leases from operating to capital leases were invalid.

The arbitration panel stated:

"The evidence also showed that, in 2016, the interest rates on Leases 1, 2 and 3 were lowered by NyacAU from 15% to 9.6%, both retroactively and going forward. Also, Leases 4, 5 and 6 were amended by eliminating the 10% purchase option and requiring exercise of the purchase option at the fair market value of the Lease at end of term. As Ms. Attala [CFO of NyacAU] explained in her testimony, the purpose of these Amendments, which she orchestrated, was to respond to Goldrich's stated position that all the Leases were capital leases, by creating Amendments which, in her view, ensured that the Leases indisputably could be characterized as operating leases. As a result of the amendments to Leases 1-3, Ms. Attala credited $1.5 million in excess interest payments by GNP (the overall difference between 15% and 9.6% interest charges) against LOC 1 [Line of Credit 1]. Mr. Schara [CEO of Goldrich], testified that Goldrich never agreed to these amendments, or to the $1.5 million credit, and considered them invalid.

… In this case, it is quite clear to the Panel that the amendments promulgated by Ms. Attala were intended to benefit NyacAU and Bear Leasing in at least two ways: (i) insuring that all Lease payments could be characterized as Operating Expenses, thereby minimizing the opportunity of Goldrich to obtain interim distributions in accordance with §10 of the Operating Agreement, since, as Operating Expenses, Lease payments for any year would have to be deducted before the parties could obtain any interim distributions for that year; and (ii) changing the purchase option formula to payment of the entire amount of fair market value at end of term, which virtually insured that GNP would not have the financial wherewithal to exercise the purchase option on any Lease, thereby allowing NyacAU (through Bear Leasing) to renew the Leases for another term, possibly extending up to the end of mine life (estimated at between 11 and 13 years in the Martin Report). It might well be argued that Ms. Attala's amendments brought the Leases closer to the standard of "reasonable. . . arms-length transactions," and provided GNP with a $1.5 million benefit at the same time. However, in the Panel's view this is overcome by Ms. Attala's attempts to sufficiently raise the purchase option prices originally agreed to in the Leases, so as to effectively deprive GNP of its ability to exercise its purchase option rights under Section 6.4 of the Operating Agreement. (Section 6.4 requires that any lease generated by NyacAU include a purchase option). Thus, in the Panel's view, it was reasonable for Goldrich to withhold its approval from these unilaterally implemented amendments, and for that reason they are deemed invalid."

Concerning the impact of the characterization of leases on Goldrich's right to interim distributions, the arbitration panel's ruling reinstated a 15% interest rate on all leases but increased the amount of interim distributions to Goldrich. The arbitration panel stated:

"…the characterization of any leases as capital leases as Leases 1, 3, 5, and 6 requires a recalculation of 2016 and 2017 interim distributions… With interest and amortization properly included in the calculation, Goldrich is entitled to an additional $214,797 in distributions for 2016 and an additional $198,644 for 2017, for a total of $413,442.

According to the terms of the Operating Agreement, any interim distribution payable must be applied to reduce any balance of Loan 3 [LOC 3] before a distribution is paid to Goldrich. Loan 3 is a loan from GNP to Goldrich. The panel calculated the total interest and principle for Loan 3 to be $102,894 as of March 31, 2019.

Ownership By GNP Of Leased Equipment
Leases 1 to 6 were 5-year leases with an option for GNP to purchase the equipment at the end of 5 years. Goldrich claimed NyacAU, as managers of GNP, had a fiduciary duty to exercise the purchase option when it was to the benefit of GNP.

Concerning Lease 1, the 5-year lease terminated on May 31, 2017. Instead of exercising the purchase option and paying $155,814 to own the equipment, NyacAU, as managers of GNP, entered into a new lease on June 1, 2017 with NyacAU's related party lessor, Bear, to pay $509,200 in rental fees over the next year and not own the equipment. However, NyacAU, as managers of GNP, made a later amendment to Lease 1 to lower the rent in March 2018, approximately four months after the arbitration proceedings had begun.

The arbitration panel ruled:

"…the evidence showed that GNP in fact made post-term cash rental payments under Lease 1 of $20,958 per month, from June 1, 2017 to December 1, 2017 (7 payments), for a total payment of $146,705. Between March 19 and April 5, 2018, NyacAU then unilaterally modified GNP's records to eliminate these cash payments, and reduced LOC 1 by $146,705. The Amended Rental Agreement was executed on March 27, 2018, retroactive to June 1, 2017.

In the Panel's view, the post-term cash rental payments made by GNP as to Lease 1 cannot be disregarded in the purchase option exercise analysis; and NyacAU's unilateral alteration of the accounting for such payments after the fact, for whatever reason, does not change this. To those cash payments should be added the $24,935 charged for rental of Lease 1 equipment for 2018, which produces a total of $171,640 in post-term rental payments/charges for Lease 1 equipment. This exceeds the purchase option price under Lease 1 ($155,814) by $15,826. Accordingly, GNP shall be deemed the beneficial owner of the Lease 1 equipment, and such equipment shall be a GNP asset in the context of the ongoing liquidation under Article XIV. As Manager, NyacAU shall use such assets, as necessary, to pay down GNP's debts and liabilities, including without limitation LOC 1 and LOC 3. NyacAU's 2018 reduction of LOC 1 by $146,705 shall be reversed, and the $15,826 overage, provided that it was not part of a charge that increased LOC 1 (which would be the case if the 2018 rental for Lease 1 equipment were paid by GNP in cash), shall decrease LOC 1 by that amount."

For Leases 2 to 7, the arbitration panel ruled that ownership of the leases, whether capital or operating, remained with Bear. Concerning Leases 2 and 3, the arbitration panel stated:

‘With respect to Leases 2 and 3, the foregoing analysis raises the further issue of whether Respondents had an obligation under the Operating Agreement to contribute funds to GNP that would make up the difference between the rental charges under the Amended Rental Agreements and the purchase option prices under the related Lease or the Amended Rental Agreement itself…

The Panel's view is that NyacAU had no fiduciary or contract obligation to make up the differential between post lease rental payments made by GNP under the Amended Rental Agreements and the purchase option prices for Leases 2 and 3."

Concerning Lease 4, the arbitration panel stated, "GNP paid no amount to rent the equipment under Lease 4 after the expiration date that could have been applied to allow exercise of the purchase option price."

Concerning Lease 5 and 6, the arbitration panel stated, "Since the Lease term has not yet run its course, no evidence could have been presented of lease payments made by GNP in excess of the option price after the end of term."

Concerning Lease 7, the arbitration panel stated, "Since Lease 7 did not run its full term, GNP obviously made no lease payments after end of term that could have been applied to the purchase option price."

Lease Charges and Ownership of Arctic Camp Purchased by Bear from Third-Party
GNP rented camp facilities from an unrelated third-party from 2012 through 2014. Bear, a related party to NyacAU, purchased the camp from the third party and put the ownership of the camp in Bear's name. Bear then began charging GNP for camp lease expense in 2015. Goldrich claimed that the camp should have been put in the name of GNP and that GNP should be reimbursed for excessive lease charges. Concerning this claim, the arbitration panel ruled:

"Because the amount of lease payments GNP made to Bear exceeded the dollar amount paid to purchase the Arctic Camp from Global Services, GNP shall be deemed the beneficial owner of the Camp in connection with the dissolution/liquidation process. Further, LOC 1 shall be reduced by $531,164, which represents the lease payments GNP was charged beyond the purchase price for the Arctic Camp."

Payment Of Interest Earned By LOC 1
Goldrich requested an award of $58,000 based upon its right to a 50% share of interest income earned by the amounts in LOC 1. The arbitration panel ruled:

"Section 6.1.2 [of the GNP Operating Agreement] makes clear that it is an obligation of NyacAU, not GNP, to pay to Goldrich 50% of any interest earned on LOC 1 actually received by NyacAU. Thus, any such amounts are not assets of GNP or subject to the GNP liquidation process. Accordingly, NyacAU shall pay to Goldrich any amount necessary to ensure that Goldrich ultimately receives 50% (a total of $126,666) of all interest earned on LOC 1 which NyacAU has received, plus pre-award interest at the rate of 5% from the date(s) that NyacAU received the earned interest.

Allocation of Tax Losses
From 2012 through 2018, NyacAU, as managers of GNP, allocated net tax losses from GNP totaling $19,888,374 to NyacAU and $839,537 to Goldrich. Goldrich claimed it had a right to 50% of all tax losses under the GNP Operating Agreement and filed Form 8082 for each year with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") to correct the GNP K-1's filed by NyacAU. Goldrich claimed a total of $9,946,369, 50% of the total GNP losses for the years 2012 through 2018. The arbitration panel ruled:

"the Parties will take steps to ensure tax losses have been shared equally, as the Operating Agreement requires, but only during the periods where actual mining operations were being performed, since those rationally are the only periods in which both parties bore a material economic risk, in terms of the impact of mining operations on processed and unprocessed gold. Based on the evidence, mining operations were performed in August-September 2013, and 2015-2018."

Prior to Goldrich receiving the Partial Final Award, the IRS processed and accepted the Forms 8082, corrected GNP K-1's, and amended tax returns filed by Goldrich for 2012 through 2017. The IRS also notified Goldrich that Goldrich's 2012 through 2014 tax returns were closed for further changes due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for those years. The IRS also conducted an audit of Goldrich's 2014 through 2017 tax returns with a ‘no change' determination. Therefore, although Goldrich was not awarded 50% of all GNP 2012 to 2014 tax losses in the arbitration, Goldrich has been allowed to take the full total of its share of GNP tax losses of $9,946,369, which can be used to offset taxable profits Goldrich generates in future years. Goldrich's total tax loss carryover, including tax losses from GNP, was $39,151,914 as of December 31, 2018.

2012 Reclamation Work
In 2012, at Goldrich's request and on its behalf, NyacAU performed reclamation work to cure Goldrich's permitting violations issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers based on Goldrich's failure to reclamate the site after Goldrich's 2009-2010 mining operations. Goldrich received its first invoice from NyacAU for the reclamation work in 2014. However, Goldrich took the position that Goldrich had been overcharged for the reclamation work, and refused to pay the reclamation invoice until the overcharges were deleted.

The arbitration panel ruled Goldrich is responsible to pay the full amount of $339,016 charged by NyacAU for the 2012 reclamation work and NyacAU is also entitled to 5% pre-judgement interest on the award from the date the first invoice was sent to Goldrich.
2010 Martin Report
In November of 2010, Mr. Martin, a mining engineer consultant for Goldrich, prepared a draft update to his 2009 Report, which incorporated the results of Goldrich's 2009-2010 placer mining operations in the area of Line 11 of the mine site. Based on the incorporation of the Goldrich data which was incomplete and had only crude estimates of the volume mined, Mr. Martin's draft report noted the pay grade of the inferred resource at Line 11, on which there was only one drill hole, was reduced from .0689 to .0572, a reduction of 16.87%. NyacAU contended that Goldrich never provided Nyac with the Updated Martin Report or the dilution information in it. The arbitration panel held that Goldrich was liable for negligent concealment of the draft report and that Dr. James, a related party of NyacAU, was entitled to reimbursement from Goldrich of 17% of his $350,000 stock investment, which equals $59,500, plus prejudgment interest thereon at 5% from the stock purchase date.
Interest Related to Wash Plant
NyacAU requested an entry on GNP's books for unpaid and unbilled interest expense of $66,180 under the appropriate Lease, incurred during the period of construction of the wash plant. The arbitration panel ruled:

"This request shall be granted, by adding as damages to Respondents the amount of $66,180 as unpaid interest under the appropriate Lease for the wash plant, which shall be booked as a debt liability on GNP's books, consistent with the Panel's decision that Leases 2 and 4 are Operating Leases and Leases 1, 3, 5, and 6 are capital leases, and also added to LOC 1. In the dissolution process, NyacAU (through Bear Leasing) shall be treated as a third party creditor with respect to the recovery of this amount from GNP."

Personal Payments of Expense Related to 2012 Reclamation
In 2012, as part of NyacAU's reclamation work, Dr. James purchased "tundra fabric," which was used for lining of the bypass and stabilization of the pit walls, and in doing so incurred personal expenses of $9,858. The arbitration panel stated Dr. James is entitled to repayment by Goldrich of this expense, plus prejudgment interest thereon at 5%.
Arbitration Panel to Retain Jurisdiction Over Dissolution and Liquidation
As requested by Goldrich and NyacAU, the arbitration panel will retain jurisdiction and oversight over the dissolution/liquidation process to its completion. The arbitration panel stated, "there is likely more information the parties will have to provide on certain issues‑‑including, among others, changes in the balance of LOC 1 and the issue of transfer of the permit to Goldrich‑‑before a Final Award on dissolution/liquidation can be made. "

No Prevailing Party
The arbitration panel ruled that "there has been no prevailing party in the arbitration to this point, although it reserves judgment as to whether a prevailing party will emerge from the Final Award with regard to issues which are now part of the Revised [Second] Interim Award. Accordingly, as to all issues covered by this Partial Final Award, the parties shall bear their own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."

Second Interim Award

Concurrent with issuing a Partial Final Award, the arbitration panel also issued a Second Interim Award. The arbitration panel noted:

"This Second Interim Award is necessitated by the facts that the dissolution/liquidation has not yet run its course; the parties have raised issues pertaining to dissolution/ liquidation on which the Panel has ruled (as set forth herein), but which conceivably could be subject to change if new issues related to the rulings arise in the future; and more issues may arise between the parties as the dissolution/liquidation process continues.

Once the dissolution/liquidation of GNP has run its course, the Panel will incorporate this Second Interim Award, along with all other issues decided in connection with the dissolution/liquidation of GNP, into a second Partial Final Award

Although the issues discussed in the Second Interim Award may change, the following items are noted:

Mine Permit and Reclamation
The arbitration panel noted that "no provision of the Claims Lease or the Operating Agreement speaks directly to the rights or obligations of GNP to transfer its mining permit". Although GNP no longer has the right to mine, GNP and NyacAU have the liability of reclamation. The arbitration panel noted:

"Absent a transfer of the Permit, GNP (through NyacAU) of course would be obligated to complete reclamation, and obtain final approval from appropriate government authorities, as required by Section 6(c) of the Claims Lease-a process estimated to take several years. But Section 14.3 contemplates that liquidation will be completed within one year of dissolution-at the latest, by May 31, 2020 (a year from the filing of the formal Notice of Dissolution by NyacAU) –unless the parties agree to a longer period. However, in the Panel's view, this conflict can be rectified by NyacAU, prior to May 2020 "mak[ing] provision" for the completion of reclamation as required by Article 14.2., even though reclamation might not be completed for several more years."

Right to Offset Damages or Distributions
The arbitration panel granted the request that any damages awarded to one party can be an offset to distributions (or damages) due to the other party.

Balance of LOC 1
The arbitration panel calculated a tentative balance of $16,483,271 as of June 2019. This balance may be adjusted for any additional liabilities incurred by GNP in the liquidation or awards and adjustments made by the arbitration panel.

About Goldrich Mining

Goldrich Mining (OTCBB: GRMC) is a U.S. based resource company focused on developing the Chandalar gold district in Alaska, USA. The Company controls a land package spanning 23,000 acres of highly prospective gold targets and historic mines. Goldrich is focused on building shareholder value by monetizing placer assets, generating non-dilutive funds, and working towards building a lode gold mine at Chandalar in addition to the existing placer gold mine already producing on site.

For additional information regarding Goldrich Mining Company or this news release, contact Mr. William Schara via telephone at (509) 768-4468 or info@goldrichmining.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This news release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward looking statements concern use of proceeds and potential exercise of the warrants. These statements relate to analyses and other information that are based on forecasts of future results, estimates of amounts not yet determinable and assumptions of management.

Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, budgets, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, using words or phrases such as "expects" or "does not expect", "is expected", "anticipates" or "does not anticipate", "plans", "estimates" or "intends", or stating that certain actions, events or results "may", "could", "would", "might", "should" or "will" be taken, occur or be achieved) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which could cause actual events or results to differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation:

risks related to our ability to continue as a going concern being in doubt;
risks related to our history of losses;
risks related to our outstanding gold forward sales contracts and notes;
risks related to need to raise additional capital to fund our exploration and, if warranted, development and production programs;
risks related to our property not having any proven or probable reserves;
risk related to our limited history of commercial production;
risk related to operating a mine;
risk related to accurately forecasting production;
risks related to our dependence on a single property – the Chandalar property;
risks related to climate and location restricting our exploration and, if warranted, development and production activities;
risks related to our mineralization estimates being based on limited drilling data;
risks related to our exploration activities not being commercially successful;
risks related to actual capital costs, production or economic return being different than projected;
risk related to our joint venture arrangements;
risks related to mineral exploration;
risks related to increased costs;
risks related to a shortage of equipment and supplies;
risk related to fluctuations in gold prices;
risks related to title to our properties being defective;
risks related to title to our properties being subject to claims;
risks related to estimates of mineralized material;
risks related to government regulation;
risks related to environmental laws and regulation;
risks related to land reclamation requirements;
risks related to future legislation regarding mining laws;
risks related to future legislation regarding climate change;
risks related to our lack of insurance coverage for all risks;
risks related to competition in the mining industry;
risks related to our dependence on key personnel;
risks related to our executive offices not dedicating 100% of their time to our company;
risks related to potential conflicts of interest with our directors and executive officers;
risks related to market conditions; and
risks related to our shares of common stock.

This list is not exhaustive of the factors that may affect our forward-looking statements. Some of the important risks and uncertainties that could affect forward-looking statements are discussed in the Company's latest Annual Report on Form 10-K and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and other documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those anticipated, believed, estimated or expected. We caution readers not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. We disclaim any obligation subsequently to revise any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of such statements or to reflect the occurrence of anticipated or unanticipated events, except as required by law.

SOURCE: Goldrich Mining Company

ReleaseID: 571118

Leading DUI Defense Attorney Shawn Dominy Reveals Why You Should Refuse a Roadside Breathalyzer Test – Columbus, OH

Top DUI defense lawyer Shawn Dominy, founding partner of the Dominy Law Office, LLC in Columbus, OH, explains why people should think twice about taking part in a roadside breathalyzer test. For more information please visit https://www.dominylaw.com

Columbus, OH, United States – December 23, 2019 /MM-REB/

In a recent interview, top DUI defense lawyer Shawn Dominy, founding partner of the Dominy Law Office, LLC in Columbus, OH, spoke about why people should refuse a roadside breathalyzer test.

For more information please visit https://www.dominylaw.com/

When asked for a comment, Dominy said, “There’s a lot of misinformation floating around when it comes to whether people should take or refuse breathalyzer tests during a police stop on the side of the road.”

One thing that Dominy always tells his clients is that they do not have to take part in a field sobriety test or the roadside breathalyzer test.

He continued by saying, “During a stop, a police officer may ask you to take a portable breath test, walk a line, and stand on one leg. But what many people don’t know is that these tests are not mandatory.”

“Also, even if you cooperate, a police officer can still arrest you even if you ‘pass’ the roadside portable breath test. It’s only one part of the evidence they consider to determine whether you are under the influence and too impaired to operate a vehicle. And, if you ‘fail’ the test, this could hurt your plea negotiations later on during the DUI case,” Dominy said.

Dominy also was keen to point out that refusing to take part in a roadside breathalyzer test may not prevent you from being arrested and asked to take a breathalyzer test at the station.

“I always advise my clients that, while they can and should say ‘no’ to roadside tests, they need to seriously consider taking the tests performed at the police station. Refusing a blood/breath/urine test after being arrested can lead to serious consequences, even if you didn’t do anything wrong,” he said.

When asked about these consequences, he said, “Refusing to perform a breath test after being arrested will result in the automatic suspension of your license for at least one year. There is a waiting period of at least 30 days to get driving privileges. That is something to consider when deciding whether to take the test.”

That said, Dominy added, many people are understandably not well-versed on the ins-and-outs of DUI law in the state of Ohio, particularly when it comes to their rights or any implications from exercising those rights.

“When in doubt, if the police start asking a lot of questions or ask you to take a roadside test, the best thing to do is to tell police officers you’d prefer not to answer any questions or take any roadside tests without a lawyer because you’ve heard you can get yourself into trouble even when you’re innocent of any wrongdoing.”

“If the police then persist or arrest you, be courteous and just let them know you would prefer to speak with your lawyer first before saying or doing anything. This way, a lawyer can help you make a more informed decision that will ultimately be in your best interest down the road,” he said.

Source: http://RecommendedExperts.biz

Contact Info:
Name: Shawn Dominy
Email: Send Email
Organization: Dominy Law Firm, LLC
Address: 7716 Rivers Edge Dr #B Columbus, OH 43235
Phone: (614) 717-1177
Website: https://www.dominylaw.com/

Source: MM-REB

Release ID: 88939817